Wendell Marv Hollingsworth pleaded guilty to the third degree felony offense of assault on a public servant. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(1),(b)(1) (Vernon 2003). The trial court sentenced Hollingsworth to five years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.

Appellate counsel filed a brief that concludes no arguable error is presented in this appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On May 15, 2003, Hollingsworth was given an extension of time in which to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant.

The State contends that Hollingsworth was sentenced in accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement that capped the punishment range at five years of confinement in the state penitentiary. The Clerk's record does not contain a written plea bargain agreement, but does include a document, titled "Unagreed Punishment Recommendations," in which the State's recommendation is "5 yr. CAP TDC." The trial court initially admonished Hollingsworth for an open plea, but then admonished Hollingsworth as follows:

THE COURT: The State of Texas, on the other hand, is going to recommend that I place you in the penitentiary but that I do not exceed five years in the penitentiary. I can follow that recommendation, but I don't have to. Do you understand?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: If I decide that you should go to the penitentiary but you should go for more than five years, I have to give you the opportunity to withdraw your plea and start all over again. Do you understand that part?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: If I decide to place you in the penitentiary anywhere from two to five, you will not have the opportunity to withdraw your plea. Do you understand?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

Although the record contains inconsistencies, it is apparent a plea bargain existed. See Lemoins v. State, 37 S.W.3d 556, 557-59 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2001, no pet.). Because the appeal was perfected before January 1, 2003, the notice of appeal must specify that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect, specify that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or state the trial court granted permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3). In an attempt to comply with Rule 25.2(b)(3), Hollingsworth filed a specific notice of appeal that stated he desires to appeal all jurisdictional defects and the substance of written motions ruled upon before trial.

To confer jurisdiction on a court of appeals to consider nonjurisdictional issues, the statements in the notice of appeal must be true. Hutchins v. State, 887 S.W.2d 207, 210 (Tex. App.--Austin 1994, pet. ref'd). We review the record to find support for the allegations in the notice of appeal. See Solis v. State, 890 S.W.2d 518, 520 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1994, no pet.). If appellant's notice of appeal is not supported by the record, it does not invoke appellate jurisdiction. Id. Hollingsworth filed pre-trial motions but did not obtain a ruling on the motions before he pleaded guilty. He has not raised jurisdictional error on appeal, and our review of the record reveals no jurisdictional error. We conclude that the notice of appeal failed to invoke our appellate jurisdiction. White v. State, 61 S.W.3d 424, 428-29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 78 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).

We have reviewed the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and find no arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Hollingsworth raises no points of error over which we have jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted September 12, 2003

Opinion Delivered September 24, 2003

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Burgess, and Gaultney, JJ.

1. Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.